CNN declares-the-constitution-racist

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbfFkoymtuU&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - EPIC MEDIA FAIL: CNN's Rick Sanchez Says States' Rights Is A Racist Term[/ame]





[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0OsfEziVyw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Chris Matthews Attacks Debra Medina[/ame]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What a bunch of idiots.

 

[Charles_Main]

the most "trusted" name in news.

 

[Conspiracist]

In one part of the bottom interview Matthews said that touting states rights is not necessarily racist but it has a a stigma attatched to it. States rights gets dismissed because of a stigma I guess.

 

[zzzz]

With all the talk about succession and states rights together the media has started to link them together and bring up the little disagreement we had back in 1860. Most people do not link states rights with racism but because the media is putting it out there people are starting to link them. The power of the media to influence how the public perceives ideas is something else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

States rights always meant slavery then the right to discriminate based on race, religion, whatever.

 

[goldcatt]

In one part of the bottom interview Matthews said that touting states rights is not necessarily racist but it has a a stigma attatched to it. States rights gets dismissed because of a stigma I guess.

I'm no Tenther, but it's a legitimate Constitutional position rooted in the Anti-Federalism movement. I simply believe it's based on too narrow and selective a reading of the founding documents and unworkable in our system, but the idea itself is racially neutral.

The problem is perception and the fact that the States Rights label has been used by some political tacticians and white supremacists to support racist agendas, even if the philosophy itself is not racist. Remember Atwater's infamous remarks on using "States Rights" as a more acceptable code term for "******"? These halfwits may not understand what States Rights is, what it stands for, its history or the subtleties within the movement, but they latch on to anecdotes because that's what they can understand. In that regard, Matthews was right. He worded it badly, but his analysis was correct.

These are ignorant people who for the most part don't really understand the fundamental argument and latch on to any superficial oversimplification they can comprehend instead of doing their homework and giving the whole picture. Disgusting that these blow dried idiots are who we rely on for "news" these days, isn't it?

 

[editec]

The way it is most often used, the term States Rights if often used as a sotto voce way of supporting racism.

When some person starts telling you that the Civil War was fought over states rights, what they won't admit, but know perfectly well is true, is the ONLY STATE right that the rebellious states were interested in protecting was their right to allow slavery.

 

[uscitizen]

The way it is most often used, the term States Rights if often used as a sotto voce way of supporting racism.

When some person starts telling you that the Civil War was fought over states rights, what they won't admit, but know perfectly well is true, is the ONLY STATE right that the rebellious states were interested in protecting was their right to allow slavery.

Ohh no there were taxes tarrifs and trade issues. the "Civil war" was not fought just for slavery.

 

[goldcatt]

States rights always meant slavery then the right to discriminate based on race, religion, whatever.

Actually it didn't. States Rights at its foundation is a question of citizenship and sovereignty. Slavery was one issue involved, but it was far from the only one.

A true States Righter believes we should go back to the States being sovereign and the residents being citizens of that State first, the nation second and many (but not all) desire the Federal government to be representative of the States rather then the people. The people would be represented directly at the State level only.

All other incidents of citizenship flow from that distinction, the issues you bring up being only a small piece of the puzzle. One with potentially large consequences if a State should go bad, but still not the largest issue by any means.

I submit this approach was tried and failed, miserably. The nation is simply too large and diverse to hold together fifty dogs on almost unlimited leashes all pulling one human in different directions. But the concept is more, much more, than slavery or discrimination.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If Obama and the Dems in Congress suspend the Constitution and let Anarchy rule then I'll have a few scores to settle.

 

[Conspiracist]

The way it is most often used, the term States Rights if often used as a sotto voce way of supporting racism.

When some person starts telling you that the Civil War was fought over states rights, what they won't admit, but know perfectly well is true, is the ONLY STATE right that the rebellious states were interested in protecting was their right to allow slavery.

Here's where I get hung up. What if you believe racists have rights too. Does that make you a racist?

 

[goldcatt]

The way it is most often used, the term States Rights if often used as a sotto voce way of supporting racism.

When some person starts telling you that the Civil War was fought over states rights, what they won't admit, but know perfectly well is true, is the ONLY STATE right that the rebellious states were interested in protecting was their right to allow slavery.

Ohh no there were taxes tarrifs and trade issues. the "Civil war" was not fought just for slavery.

Taxes and trade were huge issues. And don't forget slavery at the time was more an economic issue than one of pure racism, as we view it today. The South literally could not sustain its agricultural economy without the labor provided by slaves, and they lacked the resources and infrastructure to industrialize. I'm not defending it by any means, the labor conditions in the industrial North were nothing to brag about either as far as human rights are concerned, but if you look at the issues objectively there was much more to the conflict than racism. At its heart it was far more about economics than hating black people.

Today's States Rights movement is still largely about economics and taxation, with some social issues thrown in for good measure. But I have yet to hear a legitimate States Rights advocate say they want a return to slavery or Jim Crow. The ones who use States Rights as a foil for a racist agenda mouth some of the platitudes, but if you really listen to them they're not espousing a true States Rights position.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Excellent nuance and sophistication, goldcatt. I stand corrected.

 

[California Girl]

The way it is most often used, the term States Rights if often used as a sotto voce way of supporting racism.

When some person starts telling you that the Civil War was fought over states rights, what they won't admit, but know perfectly well is true, is the ONLY STATE right that the rebellious states were interested in protecting was their right to allow slavery.

Ohh no there were taxes tarrifs and trade issues. the "Civil war" was not fought just for slavery.

Taxes and trade were huge issues. And don't forget slavery at the time was more an economic issue than one of pure racism, as we view it today. The South literally could not sustain its agricultural economy without the labor provided by slaves, and they lacked the resources and infrastructure to industrialize. I'm not defending it by any means, the labor conditions in the industrial North were nothing to brag about either as far as human rights are concerned, but if you look at the issues objectively there was much more to the conflict than racism. At its heart it was far more about economics than hating black people.

Today's States Rights movement is still largely about economics and taxation, with some social issues thrown in for good measure. But I have yet to hear a legitimate States Rights advocate say they want a return to slavery or Jim Crow. The ones who use States Rights as a foil for a racist agenda mouth some of the platitudes, but if you really listen to them they're not espousing a true States Rights position.

I wish more people understood that.

I view it the same way I view those who insist that 'take our country back' means back in time. It does not. It means back to an ideal - that ideal is the US Constitution. No one wants to go back in time, America is a nation that moves forward. It is just that some of us want to keep the Constitution at its heart.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

States rights always meant slavery then the right to discriminate based on race, religion, whatever.

Which of course ignores the history of the northern states enforcing their rights not to follow the Fugitive Slave Act.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The way it is most often used, the term States Rights if often used as a sotto voce way of supporting racism.

When some person starts telling you that the Civil War was fought over states rights, what they won't admit, but know perfectly well is true, is the ONLY STATE right that the rebellious states were interested in protecting was their right to allow slavery.

Which of course ignores the fact that Lincoln wanted to place protective tariffs to unheard of levels that would have greatly harmed the south economically.

 

[goldcatt]

Ohh no there were taxes tarrifs and trade issues. the "Civil war" was not fought just for slavery.

Taxes and trade were huge issues. And don't forget slavery at the time was more an economic issue than one of pure racism, as we view it today. The South literally could not sustain its agricultural economy without the labor provided by slaves, and they lacked the resources and infrastructure to industrialize. I'm not defending it by any means, the labor conditions in the industrial North were nothing to brag about either as far as human rights are concerned, but if you look at the issues objectively there was much more to the conflict than racism. At its heart it was far more about economics than hating black people.

Today's States Rights movement is still largely about economics and taxation, with some social issues thrown in for good measure. But I have yet to hear a legitimate States Rights advocate say they want a return to slavery or Jim Crow. The ones who use States Rights as a foil for a racist agenda mouth some of the platitudes, but if you really listen to them they're not espousing a true States Rights position.

I wish more people understood that.

I view it the same way I view those who insist that 'take our country back' means back in time. It does not. It means back to an ideal - that ideal is the US Constitution. No one wants to go back in time, America is a nation that moves forward. It is just that some of us want to keep the Constitution at its heart.

There is more than one legitimate way to interpret the Constitution, and more than one way to apply it. I personally don't agree with the narrow reading or States Rights as the answer.

My point is, just because I disagree with it doesn't make it racist, or evil, or anything else but a different point of view. Misinformation bugs me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Excellent point, goldcatt. Both KevinKennedy and I tend to forget perception as a force when discussing states' rights. I have really have benefited your comments.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

YouTube - EPIC MEDIA FAIL: CNN's Rick Sanchez Says States' Rights Is A Racist Term





YouTube - Chris Matthews Attacks Debra Medina

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[1] but merely popularized it.[2] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[3] Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Lee Atwater: "You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."